Ruggiero v. Jones
- Philip Halpern
- 7:23-cv-07157
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Ruggiero v. Jones, Judge Halpern denied default judgment without prejudice but granted service of the amended complaint through the U.S. Marshals Service.
The plaintiff’s default-judgment request was denied without prejudice. Torres, Birks, McKenny, Johnson, and Castillo are to be served with the First Amended Complaint through the U.S. Marshals Service. The plaintiff was denied status allowing an appeal without prepaying the filing fee.
What happened
In Ruggiero v. Jones, the plaintiff asked the court to enter default judgment against Zaire Birks, Timothy McKenny, Eric Johnson, and German Castillo. The plaintiff argued that these defendants had been served and had not responded.
The court found that the request did not follow required court rules. It also found that the amended complaint had not been shown to have been served on these defendants. Service of the original complaint on Birks and McKenny appeared invalid because it occurred after the amended complaint was filed; Johnson and Castillo may be in default on the original complaint because they were served before the amendment was filed.
Judge Halpern denied the default-judgment request without prejudice. The court granted the request to have the U.S. Marshals Service serve the amended complaint on Torres, Birks, McKenny, Johnson, and Castillo, and denied fee-waiver status for any appeal because the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Ruggiero v. Jones · No. 7:23-cv-07157
- Philip Halpern
- Feb. 27, 2025
Background
The plaintiff filed a letter-motion seeking default judgment against Zaire Birks, Timothy McKenny, Eric Johnson, and German Castillo. Default judgment is a judgment requested against a party who has failed to respond to a pleading. The plaintiff argued that these defendants had been served and had not answered or otherwise responded.
Default-Judgment Request
The court denied the letter-motion without prejudice. Procedurally, the application did not comply with Local Civil Rule 55.1 or the court’s Individual Practices Rule 4(B), which govern applications for default judgment.
The court also rejected the application based on service of the operative pleading. The plaintiff had not established that any of the defendants named in the default request had been served with the First Amended Complaint. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(a)(1)(B), a pleading filed after the original complaint generally must be served on every party.
The court explained that an amended pleading ordinarily replaces the original complaint, but the effect of an amendment depends on the circumstances. Birks and McKenny were served with the original complaint after the plaintiff filed the operative amended complaint, so that service appeared invalid. Johnson and Castillo were served with the original complaint before the amended complaint was filed and therefore may be in default as to the original complaint. The court also corrected an earlier indication that Birks had been served with the First Amended Complaint, explaining that the service record referred only to the summons and original complaint.
Service Through the U.S. Marshals Service
The court construed the plaintiff’s letter-motion, in part, as requesting an order allowing service through the U.S. Marshals Service. The court granted that request. It instructed the Clerk of Court to prepare a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for Torres, Birks, McKenny, Johnson, and Castillo; issue summonses; and provide the Marshals Service with the paperwork needed to serve those defendants with the First Amended Complaint.
Appeal Status
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied the plaintiff’s status allowing an appeal without prepaying the filing fee.
Disposition
The court denied the default-judgment motion without prejudice and granted the request for service through the U.S. Marshals Service. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.